Gay Rights

Discussion for Christian perspectives on ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and so forth.
Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#46

Post by Proinsias » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:13 pm

Interesting article Danny, that's pretty much what I envisage happening in the event of same sex marriages being legalised here. The religious leaders agreeing to a deal which turns out to have a sting in the tail.

Byblos, perhaps things are different over the pond. Either way it shows my point about the separation of church and state in marriage may not solve much at all.
cyanzachary wrote:Marriage is a sacred ceremony asking for God’s blessing for the man and woman to become one.
Again we come to the question of who has the right to define marriage? By your definition I'm not married.

DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Gay Rights

#47

Post by DannyM » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:19 pm

Proinsias wrote:Interesting article Danny, that's pretty much what I envisage happening in the event of same sex marriages being legalised here. The religious leaders agreeing to a deal which turns out to have a sting in the tail.
I tend to agree with you, Pro. We'll see.
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#48

Post by Ivellious » Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:30 am

Old post but still relevant.

"Does this not violate your favorite term "seperation of church and state"?" Actually, it doesn't at all. Supports it really. The law means that religion is to be kept out of decisions and laws, that religion can not become compulsory, there can be no state religion, that the government can't force religious beliefs on others, and so on. hat's why saying that gay marriage should be illegal because the Bible says so ought to be an invalid argument, because the Constitution says the government is not allowed to govern the people based on one group's religious views.

That passage does not mean the government cannot interfere with churches or religious groups. If that were the case, the church could continue raping children because the government couldn't get involved....The passage doesn't grant immunity to the laws if you say you have a religion. All religions must still adhere to laws against discrimination just as everyone else does.

User avatar
MarcusOfLycia
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: West Michigan, United States
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Gay Rights

#49

Post by MarcusOfLycia » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:49 pm

That is one of the most warped views of the freedom of religion that I've ever heard.
"Does this not violate your favorite term "seperation of church and state"?" Actually, it doesn't at all. Supports it really. The law means that religion is to be kept out of decisions and laws, that religion can not become compulsory, there can be no state religion, that the government can't force religious beliefs on others, and so on. hat's why saying that gay marriage should be illegal because the Bible says so ought to be an invalid argument, because the Constitution says the government is not allowed to govern the people based on one group's religious views.
Roger Williams was one of the founding fathers of the US. Unheard of by many, but critically important. He was a Christian zealot who believed in the freedom of religion. You have to understand that at the time in Europe, there was a lot of mixing between politics and religion, and lots of compulsion to believe certain things. Roger Williams defended the native Americans at the time to be able to practice their own beliefs. He didn't want the government getting involved.

Our own Constitution places the freedom of religious practice first in the Bill of Rights. Originally (as Williams worded it) this was the freedom of Conscience. The freedom to believe freely. But it was based on his Christian principles. The Constitution has always been a blend of Classical Republicanism (think ancient Greece), Natural Rights philosophy (think John Locke), and Christianity (all humans have worth; freedom of Conscience). The Bible has been used in arguments for the laws of the land since its founding. It was used IN the founding itself.

The Constitution forbids the federal level creation of a national church. That's all it does. It does not remove Christianity from schools, the Bible from political decisions, or people's conscience's from their ability to enact laws or enforce them. If you think it does, you would be at war with the Constitution itself.
That passage does not mean the government cannot interfere with churches or religious groups. If that were the case, the church could continue raping children because the government couldn't get involved....The passage doesn't grant immunity to the laws if you say you have a religion. All religions must still adhere to laws against discrimination just as everyone else does.
This is called fascism. The government has NO place getting involved in what religious groups do. You can cite some petty examples of laws being broken (laws by the way, that are not violated by a religion's practices but by the actions of individual people), but it doesn't make one iota of difference. The moment the law operates as you say it does - that the government has free reign on religious practices - we would suddenly cassus belli for rebellion, and every good and decent person would have to rise up and reform the nation back on the Constitution. If we don't have the freedom to believe as we will, we have no freedom at all.

If you are an enemy to this freedom, you are living in the wrong country.
-- Josh

“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon

1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#50

Post by Ivellious » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:56 pm

I'm not saying the government should force religions to change. In fact, I actually don't necessarily agree with catholic orphanages being closed for not giving children to atheists or gay couples. There are other avenues for those potential parents, and there is no law saying an orphanage must give away children to whomever knocks.

But religious groups must still adhere to the law. Again, just saying you have a religious belief can't be enough. It would potentially allow groups to violate laws without recourse and claim immunity because of religious freedom, and that is just insane. Are you saying if I gathered a group together who said they all believed in sacrificing children to our pagan gods, would you say the government shouldn't be able to say no? It's not that I disagree with being able to practice your religion, but it has to stay within the laws that everyone must follow. And for the record, the government does grant some some immunity to the laws for long-standing religious groups so they can protect their most central values. Jews cannot be charged interest on loans, Native Americans can purchase peyote (a usually illegal hallucinogen) for religious ceremonies, and so on.

You seem to suggest that I want the government to be able to destroy the foundations of the church or other religious groups for no reason...not at all the case. They just need to play by the same rules as everyone else, and for the most part this is never an issue. In the case of the child molesting issues...yes I see your point that it was individuals. But the organization itself promoted the cover up process and the church both covered up and tried to claim immunity for the molesters in question based on their faith. If you say that they should be allowed to let walk because they are Christians, then that's some messed up system you're interpretation of the constitution is creating.

Well, according to the laws currently in place, you are wrong that Christianity has some sort of precedence over all other religions in this country. I agree, the general principles our country was founded on are based on the Christian Bible. But that being said, it is very clear that the government cannot enforce the will of Christians on everyone else just because they live in the majority. Freedom to practice religion also means the laws should not force non-Christians to adhere to the Christian faith, which seems to be the new trend among conservative republicans. You can practice whatever religion you want, as long as you don't try to make everyone else do the same.

User avatar
MarcusOfLycia
Senior Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:03 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: West Michigan, United States
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Gay Rights

#51

Post by MarcusOfLycia » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:44 am

But religious groups must still adhere to the law. Again, just saying you have a religious belief can't be enough. It would potentially allow groups to violate laws without recourse and claim immunity because of religious freedom, and that is just insane. Are you saying if I gathered a group together who said they all believed in sacrificing children to our pagan gods, would you say the government shouldn't be able to say no? It's not that I disagree with being able to practice your religion, but it has to stay within the laws that everyone must follow. And for the record, the government does grant some some immunity to the laws for long-standing religious groups so they can protect their most central values. Jews cannot be charged interest on loans, Native Americans can purchase peyote (a usually illegal hallucinogen) for religious ceremonies, and so on.
Correct, to a point. Some communities do not have to follow every established law, as you pointed out. What you said previously was "That passage does not mean the government cannot interfere with churches or religious groups." The government 'interfering' with religious groups and ideas is a terrifying prospect. If a group believes that human sacrifice is okay, one must allow them to think that way! That doesn't mean the act itself should be legal, but when you start to outlaw -beliefs- (the first amendment was inherently designed to protect beliefs), you cross into dangerous territory. Combine this with IBM's assertion that within the decade they will have thought-reading devices, and you have reached the threshold of some very dark times in the history of freedom.
You seem to suggest that I want the government to be able to destroy the foundations of the church or other religious groups for no reason...not at all the case. They just need to play by the same rules as everyone else, and for the most part this is never an issue. In the case of the child molesting issues...yes I see your point that it was individuals. But the organization itself promoted the cover up process and the church both covered up and tried to claim immunity for the molesters in question based on their faith. If you say that they should be allowed to let walk because they are Christians, then that's some messed up system you're interpretation of the constitution is creating.
Child-molestation is not a tenant of the Catholic Church. You would be hard-pressed to find punishing people for child molestation to violate the First Amendment. However, since this post is about 'gay rights':

We can all agree that molesting children is bad and people who do it should be punished. We all probably agree similarly on murder, rape, theft, arson, etc. But what happens when laws are established that -do- violate religious principles. The Constitution errs on the side of freedom historically. If a law is established saying people can marry regardless of gender combination, that would force Christians to acknowledge the marriage (which would be a violation of their beliefs). It may, in cases where it can be combined with so-called 'hate crime' legislation, force Christian ministers to perform the marriage ceremonies lest the risk jail time or sensitivity training. Should Christians, in this case, be forced to 'play by the same rules as everyone else'? Where do you define the line between the power the government has over religious communities and the freedom of those within those communities.
Well, according to the laws currently in place, you are wrong that Christianity has some sort of precedence over all other religions in this country. I agree, the general principles our country was founded on are based on the Christian Bible. But that being said, it is very clear that the government cannot enforce the will of Christians on everyone else just because they live in the majority. Freedom to practice religion also means the laws should not force non-Christians to adhere to the Christian faith, which seems to be the new trend among conservative republicans. You can practice whatever religion you want, as long as you don't try to make everyone else do the same.
Christianity does not force adherence. Catholicism in the medieval world did (something to be blamed on the Roman religious-system ancestry, no doubt). Islam does. Militant atheists desire it, too. Hinduism requires Caste systems in place. Etc.

Christianity, unlike many, many other religions in the world, FORCES its followers (when they follow it accurately), to let people make their own decisions. This Christian principle is where the First Amendment comes from! Our laws are inherently Christianized because it requires Christian principles to allow religious freedom. Many modern atheists want to ban religion because they feel it is worse than criminal behavior. A recent atheist (pardon me for not remembering who) said something like "If I could rid the planet of rape or religion, I would choose religion". This is entirely in opposition to the Constitution.

The Founders, from Jefferson (who was critical of the Bible in places, for sure), to Washington (who was not so much), to Williams (a Christian zealot), required the teachings of Christ in forming a coherent system.

You're right- some people tend to want to force Christianity itself on people. This is wrong and it is a violation of the First Amendment (just as the militant atheist desires are violations). But most Christians, you'll find, understand that it is God's job in convicting the lost. It is only our job to defend our faith when people finally are convicted to ask and to preach to those who are willing to listen (sometimes who aren't). Never is any of this to be done with force. But our laws on religions freedom are inherently Christian. Your viewpoint on it, in fact, is distinctively Christian! Even the Romans, who allowed people to keep their gods upon being conquered, would force other god's on their conquests. But in America, there has never been force, because our system specifically defends the freedom of conscience, and the freedom of conscience is a Christian concept. This idea was revolutionary for a government, but ancient for the Christians of the time.

Sorry if you don't like the idea of Christianity having such a profound role in our government, but I hope you can come to appreciate it instead. That doesn't mean it allows people to be forced into a belief, but it does mean that had our nation been founded without Christianity's influence, we likely would not live in such a free society today.
-- Josh

“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon

1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#52

Post by Ivellious » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:32 am

OK. I think there may have been a misunderstanding. I do not advocate for the government interfering with beliefs, but rather the actions themselves. My problem is the idea that some would use their religion to cover up their acts or try to protect themselves from the law using their beliefs. Again, I totally agree that Catholic orphanages or churches should be able to not serve gay people if they feel it violates their religion (as long as there is a completely equal other avenue for gay people to receive these services elsewhere). But in the event of, say, a priest molesting a child, "confessing" it to another priest, then claiming that he can't get in trouble for it because his beliefs say the problem is taken care of...well, regardless of what someone's faith says, that priest and anyone involved in covering it up should be prosecuted. You might call that "interfering" with beliefs, but the laws still need to apply to everyone.

As far as the Christian values in our country's founding...I understand your point. But just because Christianity played an integral part in the founding of this country doesn't mean it ought to get special privileges in government and law. My only problem is when someone in office proposes a law (say on essentially making being gay illegal), and bases the reason for that law only on the Bible. Now, you say that people should not be forced to adhere to someone else's faith in this country based on freedom of religion. So, why does a Christian politician get off trying to force a Christian value on everyone else? Especially when that value might reduce the rights and freedoms of other Americans? It's hypocritical to say that these people are upholding Christian values and freedoms while ultimately trying to use their power to force the minority into their beliefs.

I really do appreciate the basic moral guidelines and values of Christianity, much like I value the basics of many religions. I just want a place where the Christians can be Christians, the atheists can be atheists, the Jews can be Jews, and so on, without our government feeling the need to push us towards becoming a solely Christian nation when the thing that made us great in the first place was not being a Christian nation, but one of many faiths (Having laws based in Christianity doesn't mean you are a Christian nation in my opinion). I agree that militant atheists are just as bad, probably worse in the most extreme cases.

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Gay Rights

#53

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:22 pm

But in the event of, say, a priest molesting a child, "confessing" it to another priest, then claiming that he can't get in trouble for it because his beliefs say the problem is taken care of...well, regardless of what someone's faith says, that priest and anyone involved in covering it up should be prosecuted. You might call that "interfering" with beliefs, but the laws still need to apply to everyone.
I totally agree, They should as Christains give themselves up and confess and let the authority's of the land decide what to do with them.


Dan
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

Bill McEnaney
Recognized Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:56 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#54

Post by Bill McEnaney » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:46 am

To me, many who feel same-sex attractions seem egotistical. For me, they're too self-preoccupied. In my opinion, our duties usually determine our rights, not the other way around. My parents had a right to do the morally right things they needed to do to feed, shelter clothe, and protect my siblings and me when we were kids because they had a duty to do those things. I have a right to take care of my aging parents because the Bible tells me that I should do that. But each duty presupposes the right to live because to do our duties, we first need to be living.

Same-sex rights activists and man other liberals seem to believe that rights trump duties. Same-sex couples think they have a right to have children. But for me, a same-sex couple violates a child's right to have a relationship with his opposite-sex parent when that couple gets, say, sperm from a sperm bank or an egg from an anonymous donor. Whether they mean to or not, that couple may mislead their children about the nature of masculinity or femininity. If they treat the child as a possession, he may be their "mere tool to meet their needs." Heterosexual couples may treat their children that way, too. Whatever sex or sexes attract the parents, I believe they're being egotists when they treat their children that way. That's partly why I doubt that anyone has a God-given right to do what his any of his vices tempt him to do.

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#55

Post by Ivellious » Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:10 am

Why is it egotistical to want to have and raise a child? Is it not egotistical and self-involved for heterosexual couples to try to have a child together? You're making quite an assumption by saying that most gay couples are just in it for themselves. Why is it a vice to want to be treated equally as straight people? It's like saying, "you were born gay, so you don't get to have kids unless you bow to the social norm." That's the same logic used to push slavery of blacks and the restriction of rights for women.

Also, I take offense to the idea that children need to be brainwashed with the idea that boys need to be masculine and girls need to be feminine. I have straight friends who don't fall under those particular "norms." Did their parents fail them by not teaching them to be "proper" boys and girls? Honestly, that frame of thought should have died out years ago.

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Gay Rights

#56

Post by CallMeDave » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:04 am

Murray wrote:What RIGHT exactly are they fighting for? How are they considered a civil rights movement? It shocks me. They have always had the right to vote, they have always been free, they have always been employed equally, so why do they cry injustice? Simple, this is not a civil rights movement , it is a in your face, accept us even if you disagree with our lifestyle movement. Why else do they have parades where members commit sodomy in front of children? It is to simply shock and offend not to gain rights.

Some gays would argue marriage Rights correct? Ok, that’s fine, why do atheist not get married then? Many atheist get civil unions (which have all, and I mean all, the same rights as marriage). Marriage is a religious institution and the government has absolutely no right to mandate churches to marry gays. Look at churches that have been sued for millions of dollars, rich churches that have missions, orphanages, and hospitals, all of a sudden closed because of a civil law suit because the stuck to their beliefs. How many adoption centers have been closed by the catholic church rather than give married gays children? Its horrible, this movement does nothing but shock, offend, and even degrade homosexuals. Even as one who is generally light on the topic of homosexuality, looking in to this movement it has really changed my view on its legitimacy.
This issue begs the question : If a people Group can be shown to engage in grossly deviancy to common decency standards as well as highly dangerous frequent behavior (often leading to a premature and slow painful death) to individuals as well as an entire Nation....should normal Rights even be granted ? We dont extend normal Rights to everyone --- those that are incarcerated for instance. So, if a people Group bring destruction to individuals and a Nation, why should they be able to maintain their rights instead of forefitting them ?
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Gay Rights

#57

Post by CallMeDave » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:04 am

Murray wrote:What RIGHT exactly are they fighting for? How are they considered a civil rights movement? It shocks me. They have always had the right to vote, they have always been free, they have always been employed equally, so why do they cry injustice? Simple, this is not a civil rights movement , it is a in your face, accept us even if you disagree with our lifestyle movement. Why else do they have parades where members commit sodomy in front of children? It is to simply shock and offend not to gain rights.

Some gays would argue marriage Rights correct? Ok, that’s fine, why do atheist not get married then? Many atheist get civil unions (which have all, and I mean all, the same rights as marriage). Marriage is a religious institution and the government has absolutely no right to mandate churches to marry gays. Look at churches that have been sued for millions of dollars, rich churches that have missions, orphanages, and hospitals, all of a sudden closed because of a civil law suit because the stuck to their beliefs. How many adoption centers have been closed by the catholic church rather than give married gays children? Its horrible, this movement does nothing but shock, offend, and even degrade homosexuals. Even as one who is generally light on the topic of homosexuality, looking in to this movement it has really changed my view on its legitimacy.
This issue begs the question : If a people Group can be shown to engage in grossly deviancy to common decency standards as well as highly dangerous frequent behavior (often leading to a premature and slow painful death) to individuals as well as an entire Nation....should normal Rights even be granted ? We dont extend normal Rights to everyone --- those that are incarcerated for instance. So, if a people Group bring destruction to individuals and a Nation, why should they be able to maintain their rights instead of forefitting them ?
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Gay Rights

#58

Post by Ivellious » Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:43 am

should normal Rights even be granted ? We dont extend normal Rights to everyone --- those that are incarcerated for instance
Haha, so, you're saying that gays are on equal footing with convicted criminals. That's so ludicrous, and I hope you understand that.

It's also kinda ironic considering you say that we should withhold rights from gays just like we do convicts...Because we let convicts get married to whomever they choose. In many cases they are still allowed to have/raise children after they get out of jail. They can't vote, though...
So, if a people Group bring destruction to individuals and a Nation, why should they be able to maintain their rights instead of forefitting them ?
I ask you again, show me how they destroy a nation or a society. You've made this claim repeatedly without basis. Sweden is one of the happiest, wealthiest, and most gay-friendly places on Earth. It's working fine for them. America is by and large anti-gay and is going through the most tumultuous time in our history since the Great Depression.

User avatar
Murray
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Williston, North Dakota
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

Re: Gay Rights

#59

Post by Murray » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:19 am

Sweden also had like 1/15th of our population, and Scandinavia inst exactly christian friendly. Perhaps you should read about the mass church burning and christian murders caused by Swedish and norweigan black metal.

By The Way, only under 10 confirmed cases of gays murdered because of his sexual choices in the united states The liberal media loves to blow it out of proportion to make it seem like a war on gays is occurring. It's not, nobody fears gays, some people just like to keep us living in a moral, decent, family friendly society and not be exposed to acceptance and embracing of sin.
in nomine patri et fili spiritu sancte

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Gay Rights

#60

Post by CallMeDave » Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:08 pm

Ivellious wrote:
should normal Rights even be granted ? We dont extend normal Rights to everyone --- those that are incarcerated for instance
Haha, so, you're saying that gays are on equal footing with convicted criminals. That's so ludicrous, and I hope you understand that.

It's also kinda ironic considering you say that we should withhold rights from gays just like we do convicts...Because we let convicts get married to whomever they choose. In many cases they are still allowed to have/raise children after they get out of jail. They can't vote, though...
So, if a people Group bring destruction to individuals and a Nation, why should they be able to maintain their rights instead of forefitting them ?
I ask you again, show me how they destroy a nation or a society. You've made this claim repeatedly without basis. Sweden is one of the happiest, wealthiest, and most gay-friendly places on Earth. It's working fine for them. America is by and large anti-gay and is going through the most tumultuous time in our history since the Great Depression.
1. Dont they have the same common thread in that they do deviant immoral things which harm others and a Nation ?
2. Aside from the marriage issue, dont we restrict/take away rights and normal freedom priveldges to inmates ?
3. Can you think of any ways at all that Homosexuals harm themselves and even beyond themselves ? Think about it seriously then list a couple of ways .
4. What does the economy have to do with dangerous lifestyles ? Just because a Nation is financially secure doesnt make it necessarily a good Nation...certainly not morally prosperous. Right ?
5. (Optional) . Do you have a loved one or friend who practices active Homosexuality ?
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

Post Reply